PM to USA on what aircraft?

[kookaburra75]

More likely, the KC-30As can tank of each other, so if there was a requirement for such a long voyage, it could be refuelled midway by another aircraft.

But one problem is the cost per tonne of refuelling mid air compared to on the ground – about 14 times more. I suspect they dropped into Hawaii to top up the tanks before proceeding onto the US.

 

[justinbrett]

But one problem is the cost per tonne of refuelling mid air compared to on the ground – about 14 times more. I suspect they dropped into Hawaii to top up the tanks before proceeding onto the US.

I wasn’t implying they did that on this trip, I was describing the capability.

The cost you speak of isn’t cut and dry, fuel is fuel and costs the same - the extra cost comes from operating the second aircraft and the cost of lifting that fuel. Since the RAAF doesn’t charge itself for refuelling (different story using coalition tankers) the actual cost would be mostly just extra fuel (nowhere near 14x). It all comes out of Air Force’s budget anyway, they don’t send a bill to PMC.

 

[p--and--t]

According to flight radar24 the plane went out via HNL Thu19Sep and was calling back into HNL Thu26thSep after wandering around the US for the last week.

(Aircraft Id A39-007)

 

[jb747]

The cost you speak of isn’t cut and dry, fuel is fuel and costs the same - the extra cost comes from operating the second aircraft and the cost of lifting that fuel. Since the RAAF doesn’t charge itself for refuelling (different story using coalition tankers) the actual cost would be mostly just extra fuel (nowhere near 14x).

Whilst it’s true that ‘fuel is fuel’ the effective cost of that fuel varies dramatically. If you’ve had to fly a second aircraft to (for example) HNL to act as a tanker, every kilo of fuel that if offloads has a cost that must include the positioning, and post, flights. I can see how it could easily get to 14x.

But..if you want to make a refuelling capable A330 go about an extra 1,000 nms, there are a number of ways of looking at the problem.

1. You could refuel towards the end of the journey. The aircraft will always need some form of diversion airfield (in case the tanking can’t happen), but a 767 could get across the Pacific, so I assume an A330 would come close. So, tank somewhere around the US west coast. Problem is that you need a tanker, so you could position one of your own (eek $), or ask the USAF nicely for one of theirs (possibly less eek $).

2. Refuel somewhere near Hawaii. Same issues with having a tanker in the first place. You won’t need to load the aircraft with as much fuel out of Oz, but the savings are trivial.

3. Refuel shortly after top of climb. Don’t start with a full fuel load, get it after you’ve reached cruising altitude (actually a bit less, as you can’t tank there). The tanker won’t have to fly very far from home, and you’ll have an A330, with full fuel, and at cruise altitude, within a 1,000 miles of your start point. I’ll bet it can comfortably go the whole way now.

The dynamics of air to air refuelling aren’t necessarily obvious. Look up the way the Vulcan got to the Falklands for an extreme case.

 

[justinbrett]

Whilst it’s true that ‘fuel is fuel’ the effective cost of that fuel varies dramatically. If you’ve had to fly a second aircraft to (for example) HNL to act as a tanker, every kilo of fuel that if offloads has a cost that must include the positioning, and post, flights. I can see how it could easily get to 14x.

But..if you want to make a refuelling capable A330 go about an extra 1,000 nms, there are a number of ways of looking at the problem.

1. You could refuel towards the end of the journey. The aircraft will always need some form of diversion airfield (in case the tanking can’t happen), but a 767 could get across the Pacific, so I assume an A330 would come close. So, tank somewhere around the US west coast. Problem is that you need a tanker, so you could position one of your own (eek $), or ask the USAF nicely for one of theirs (possibly less eek $).

2. Refuel somewhere near Hawaii. Same issues with having a tanker in the first place. You won’t need to load the aircraft with as much fuel out of Oz, but the savings are trivial.

3. Refuel shortly after top of climb. Don’t start with a full fuel load, get it after you’ve reached cruising altitude (actually a bit less, as you can’t tank there). The tanker won’t have to fly very far from home, and you’ll have an A330, with full fuel, and at cruise altitude, within a 1,000 miles of your start point. I’ll bet it can comfortably go the whole way now.

The dynamics of air to air refuelling aren’t necessarily obvious. Look up the way the Vulcan got to the Falklands for an extreme case.

What I was trying to get at is that the RAAF doesn’t run to the economics of an airline. The aircraft are funded to fly a certain number of hours a year, and while you’ll often hear figures in senate estimes (Minister X took the BBJ to xx_ at a cost to the taxpayer of ....) it is not a driving force when it comes to planning. 34SQN is slightly different because it exists solely for VIP transport, but 33SQN (KC-30A) conducts mostly military tasks where economics isn’t really a factor (ie, dragging 4 hornets from Williamtown to Nellis isn’t going to be cheap). That’s not to suggest they are wasteful, but to be honest, using a KC30 for something like this (actually tanking) is much better continuation training for the aircrew than just ferrying around troops (which it does often).

 

[FlyboyAl]

I know it's not Shark 1 (!) but here is a pic of a RAAF C17 refueling from a USAF KC10 refueler. I would assume the Airbus can take and deliver fuel the same. This KC10 was out of Travis Air Force base in California, outside San Francisco.